Saturday, July 31, 2010

Oh Snap!! Looking kinda iffy!!Pretend 44 only has two options: Pitching the idea that living with the world's very first terrorist regime all nuked up is awesome or pitching the idea after the fact that a "perilous" (that's a double envelopment ala Cannae - nicht war? ) military campaign to stop the illegit Mullahopolis from xing the threshold into new clear power and projectionisawesome

"...As it contemplated the use of force, the administration's decision-making would be further complicated by the need for a plan to unwind military hostilities and make sure a confrontation did not escalate out of control. "...The White House would have to signal to Tehran that the U.S. military objective was not to overthrow the clerical regime but to enforce the will of the international community by disabling Iran's nuclear program. The message would need to make clear that for the United States, hostilities would end with the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities, but that if Iran retaliated, Washington would press its attacks until Tehran could no longer respond. "...A sobering thought for the mullahs, but also for a U.S. administration that would have to carry out the threat.

"...Administration planners might be tempted to assume that reason would prevail in Tehran -- that a chastised and crestfallen theocracy would confine its response to organizing large demonstrations while basking in the allegiance of a more unified nation and that privately, Iran's leaders would concede to the logic of power and desist from a conflict that their country could not win.

"...But prudence would lead the national security team to counsel the president to plan for a potentially prolonged conflict. The Iranian regime may find heightened nationalism useful in diverting attention from the deficiencies of its rule, but to mollify its public, the theocratic leadership may be pressed into a more open confrontation with the "Great Satan." "...Caution and circumspection evaporate in a tense atmosphere, and the uncertainty surrounding Iran's response to a strike would seriously burden the president's decision-making.

5
comments:

Seriously? A two page article on how the Administration might think regarding Iran, and no mention of Hezbollah, the Strait of Hormuz, Quods, Iranian support to insurgents in AFG and IRQ, or Israel?

Mr. Simon seems to have very keen insights into the supposed banal nature of European cooperation with US actions against Iran. But, he is incredibly dull when it comes to the tangled relationships between Iran, AFG, IRQ, Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

Hmmm, I personally don't think 44 has the foresight, guts or character to do what needs to be done. Although I believe that some level of covert common cause could be made with the Saudis, and Gulf States, who fear the Shiabomb as much as Israel, the Chinese and Russsians would bask in the radioactive glow of Bushehr.

Not to mention, those pesky Scuds the Syrians are delivering to Hezbollah, the Qods Force bubbas in Iraq and Lebanon, the swarms of small boats near the Straits of Hormuz.

Taking down the gay-free mullahocracy's nuclear capability would be an extended campaign...just to get through the clouds of SAMs delivered by Pooty-Poot and the dregs of the Iranian Air Force will take hundreds of sorties.

Now, consider some luv sent from our SSGNs-each packing 100+ Tomahawk missiles...that could be fun, along with some GBU-28 greetings from Great Satan's Batplane...that might get their attention...

Again though. No action taken against Iran would end with our first salvo. Rather, it would end up with 20% of the world's daily oil supply held hostage. Think the tanker war ('87) was rough, it would be nothing compared to what the world would have to pull off to keep oil flowing. Can you say gas at $15 a gallon, just in the US... call it $20 a liter in Europe.

The geography that Iran was blessed with is what keeps her from being attacked.

further more, I think Mr. Simon's completely misses the mark in that Europe, and indeed the US are the ones scrambling to do SOMETHING in order to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. Given enough time, and rhetoric, I believe we will see action taken by the Saudi's against Iran. The Saudi's recent intervention in Lebanon to secure peace there, and from a return to civil war shows the lengths they are actually willing to go to from keeping Iran's proxies from running wild. It is just a first step. But, a step none the less for regional hegemony--a counter to Iranian dominance of the Muslim world and Arabian Gulf.

When A-jad stole the last election, I was surprised to see that there were so many people in Iran that wouldn't stand for it, it seemed like there were a lot of people who beleived in the idea of an Islamic Republic, and felt that A-jad was usurping it, and so they reacted like a free people should and stood against the dictator. It was actually impressive, they clearly value their freedom and liberty, at least as it is within an 'islamic republic'.So I have to wonder, WOULD the rulers merely kowtow to the US striking them, would they 'submit to the logic of force', or would they take the attack as an attack on their sovereignty and respond, like the iranian people did?

wHoA!

h0t!

~hEy Y"all! DoN"t MiSs GsGf~!

Guaranteed to magically transform subscribers into superior intellectuals, worldly, pious, witty, cool, fun to be with, irresistable, au courant and all together with it. Amaze friends, confound enemies and revel in the envy and righteous respect of peers.